The Bauhaus and Constructivism

 

The Bauhaus and Constructivism

 

 

 

 

 

Name:

Course:

Date:

 

 

Introduction

Constructivism is a philosophy in art that originated in Russia in the early 20^th century between the 1910s and 1920s. Russian sculptors Naum Gabo and Antoine Pevsner coined the term to refer to their work, which appeared to be industrial in style. The word became much wider, however, as eventually it came to refer to principles, processes as well as the final products of the artists involved,[1] The Bauhaus was a school of art that Walter Gropius started in 1919 in Germany. The school sought to combine artistic ideals with technology. The school only lasted until 1933, when the Nazi government forced its closure.[2] However, following its closure, proponents of the school moved around the world, spreading the ideals and views of the Bauhaus.

Constructivism and Bauhaus were, in some ways, similar in their principles and ideals. They both pushed for an integration of art and life in which technology and industry played a pivotal role.[3] Constructivism encompassed several ideas that were, at that time, revolutionary in the world of art. The key principles were that people should use art to help form a new society, that art should be united with life and that art could manipulate the consciousness of a person.[4] Another key idea present in the constructivism philosophy was the movement’s rejection of autonomous art.[5] As for Bauhaus, Gropius founded the school around the idea of integrating art and industry.[6] His early writings show that he had formulated these ideas years before he started the school in Germany. In his arguments, Gropius stated that the industries should seriously consider artistic values and that products should not just be simple substitutes rather, they should bear the better features of handcrafted while still being machine produced.[7] The Bauhaus and constructivism were two closely related movements that sought to unite art with the needs and demands of industrial Europe.

Reflection on Evolution

Walter Gropius founded the Bauhaus school in Weimar in 1919, however, the evolution of the movement dates back a few decades earlier. Scholars argue that the historical origins can be traced back to the 19^th century.[8] The industrial revolution was rapidly sweeping over Europe, and it had massive implications for German society. The rapid industrialization forced a restructuring of the society and led to the formation of a proletariat class that encompassed a large portion of the German population. Some people were not happy about these developments and John Ruskin was one of the first to air his discontent. Ruskin proposed that there be social reform in which industrial manufacturing was ended.[9] William Morris, a student of Ruskin’s, supported these views and argued that there was a need to reinvent all of the things that industrialized Europe was mass producing at the time[10]. These ideas inspired other artists who went on to set up guilds that brought together economic purpose and community lifestyle.  Eventually, Morris embraced socialism because he felt that the success of his ideas was still limited. The relative success of Morris’ ideas in England saw an imitation of the ideals in other European countries as they tried to emulate the success that England was enjoying in the field of art.[11]

When Gropius founded the Bauhaus in 1919, his ideas were very similar to those held by Morris and Ruskin in England a few decades prior. His first ideas concerned the formation of an educational institution that would help industry, trade and craft by providing them with artistic advice.[12] In 1919, he formed the school by merging Grand Ducal School of Arts with the Weimar Academy of Fine Art. After the formation of the school under Gropius, Bauhaus went on to be established in two other cities, Dessau and Berlin.[13] In the Weimar school, Gropius pushed for industry, technology and art to embrace and benefit society together. He felt that industry should have been mass-producing items that were affordable and functional, but that still bore artistic and aesthetic appeal. The institution in Weimar also incorporated expressionist ideals. Gropius had always been slightly aligned to these ideals but after the First World War, he felt that a new era was beginning and started advocating his new theories.[14]

Gropius’ new ideas caused a rift between himself and Johannes Itten, an expressionist who had been teaching at the institution in Weimar. Eventually, the two could no longer work together and Itten left. Itten’s replacement was Maholy-Nagi.[15] His introduction ushered in a new era as he brought with him constructivist tendencies. O’Carroll argues that the early work of the school shows this transition from expressionist leanings to constructivist ones. More change was to come in the school as political pressure forced the institution to move from Weimar to Dessau. The change in location was followed by a change in leadership as Gropius was replaced with Hannes Meyer three years after the move (1928).[16]

The change in venue and leadership forced the school to change its focus as well. Meyer moved the school further towards Neue Sachlichkeit (new objectivity). Focus was now on material constraint and productive method as opposed to aesthetics. Meyer forced the school to move towards being more socially responsible.[17] The Dessau school paid attention to the needs of the housing crisis that had engulfed Germany after the war. Meyer also introduced architecture as a discipline to the Bauhaus. Meyer’s leadership caused a lot of discontent within the school and several professors resigned as a result. Many people felt that he did not care about the aesthetic importance of the school’s work. In 1930, the Dessau City council replaced Meyer with Ludwig Mies van der Rohe. Politics forced the school to move yet again, this time to Berlin. The Nazi government was opposed to the leftist ideals of the Bauhaus and in 1933, the faculty closed the school under pressure from the state.[18]

The evolution of the Bauhaus did not stop with the school’s closure. Proponents of the school’s ideals and theories immigrated to different parts of the world, spreading these ideas in the process. Architecture has been one of the school’s largest exports as constructions in Tel Aviv, Pennsylvania and Chicago bear the style that made the Bauhaus school famous. For some scholars though, these later works are not a part of the Bauhaus movement, as they prefer to consider only the school that thrived in Weimar Germany.[19]

Constructivism began at the same time as the Bauhaus school. The philosophy’s evolution can be traced back to the Russian Revolution that occurred a few years prior. After the revolution, the question was asked concerning what revolutionary art was. For the communists, it was art that celebrated the revolution while the artists saw it as work that broke away from the traditions of the past. The two ideas are related in that the revolution converged them. Art was allowed to flourish in the new Russia and this encouraged the artists to break boundaries. Critics deem constructivism to be one of two eras of Russian revolutionary art.[20]

Constructivism in Russia was founded by the ideas put forward by Vladimir Tatlin,

Naum Gabo and Antoine Pevsner. In Moscow, the philosophy was represented by VKhUTEMAS, an institution for art and design that was founded in the same year as the movement.[21] During this stage, the philosophy was more about politics than art. In the 1920s, artists narrowed down the meaning of the philosophy. The definition of constructivism became a combination of two issues. The first was “Faktura”, the material properties that an object had and the second was “tektonika”, which refers to an objects spatial presence. Within this definition, artists worked on three-dimensional works that were related to industry and mass production. During this phase, most of the constructivist art created crossed the lines between painting, sculpture, aesthetics and utility.[22]

The constructivists soon diverged and started working on art that did not incorporate three dimensions. Two-dimensional art became a focal point for the constructivists as they started working on items such as books and posters. Much of their work was inspired by the revolution and this was evident in the things that they produced. Under the stewardship of the communist government artists soon worked on other projects that included designs for streets and public festivals. One of the more famous constructivist productions were the street paintings that the UNOVIS group carried out in Vitebisk, with the most popular being El Lissitzky’s Beat the Whites with the Red Wedge.[23]

Role of Philosophical and Ideological Movements

The Bauhaus school moved through four major phases. The first three phases came during the school’s location in Weimar, Dessau and Berlin. Each of these stages is important because the school was under different leadership and had carried different ideals. The fourth stage of the school follows the closure of the institution by the Nazi government. Walter Gropius is perhaps the most important figure in the Bauhaus school. He founded it in Weimar in 1919, and went on to become an important part of its growth and development.[24] Gropius formulated the school’s original ideals. In 1919, Gropius released the Bauhaus Manifesto and Program, a document that went on to guide the school for years to come.

Lazlo Maholy-Nagy worked with Gropius at the institute in Weimar. His work falls under both the Bauhaus school and the constructivism movement.[25] One of Maholy-Nagy’s introduction into the Weimar school played a role in merging constructivist tendencies with the Bauhaus ideals. Advancements in technology influenced is work as he soon developed a functional use of abstraction, one of his key contributions to the Bauhaus school. He made other contributions to  the school in painting, design and photography. Maholy-Nagy was also one of the emigrants who helped to spread the school to the United States.[26]

The development and spread of constructivism started in Russia with Vladimir Tatlin. Because of this, many scholars consider him a central figure in the birth of the philosophy. Tatlin’s work was inspired by Picasso’s cubism and Russian futurism. He created works that cut across sculpting and architecture.[27] Tatlin had been trained as a painter but he eventually abandoned this to focus on creating works using metal, glass and wood. Tatlin’s ideas were key to the theories of the constructivist philosophy. One of these ideas was that art should transition from its representational function to one that was more practical and useful. The projects that he developed with these ideas have since become figures of inspiration for artists around the world. Famous examples of the projects include The Tower, an icon for modernity and The Monument to the Third International, a design for the international communist headquarters. Neither of the projects was ever completed.[28]

Naum Gabo was another important contributor to the constructivist philosophy. His early works with other avant-garde artists made him one of the founding fathers of constructivism. He specialized in making sculptures with his preferred material being glass, metal and plastics. In line with the constructivists, Gabo felt that only the work was important and not the origin or the creator’s identity. Unlike other constructivists, Gabo focused solely on three-dimensional art that specifically explored space.[29]

Technological Changes

The architecture employed by Bauhaus and constructivist artists is still revered to this date. Both schools were related to European modernism and futurism and their art reflected this link. Architecture within both schools emerged as result of the demands of society.[30] Meyer

introduced the discipline in the Bauhaus school, while constructivist artists in Russia started addressing the issue after the 1917 Revolution. The architectural style of the two schools has withstood the test of time and is still revered and used today despite the advancement made in technology. Bauhaus architecture can still be seen today in cities such as Tel Aviv, Dessau and Chicago.[31] However, the constructivist architecture fell out of favour. The style changed gradually in the 1930s and gave birth to post constructivism.[32]

Role Played by Time and Place

Both the Bauhaus school and Constructivism were greatly affected by time and place as they developed over the years. For constructivism, events occurring in Russia had a lot of influence on the philosophy. The Bolshevik Revolution was an important precursor to the constructivist movement. The Tsarist government had always suppressed artists, and the communist regime wanted to reverse that. They wanted art to flourish under their new regime and encouraged artists to develop works about the revolution as a way of giving communism legitimacy under culture and tradition.[33] The Bolshevik revolution was also important in that the artists linked their ideas and output to the communist ideology. Through this relationship between the revolution and constructivism, it becomes obvious that the development of the philosophy in Russia during the 1910s and 1920s was an important aspect needed to allow the philosophy to emerge as it did.

Unlike constructivism, the Bauhaus school developed in Germany, where the circumstances were very different. A regime change was also in the process of taking place, but in Germany, the outcome for the art school would be different, as the incoming leaders were not receptive of Bauhaus philosophy.[34] When the school started at Weimar, it was supported by the Weimar regime in Germany and this support allowed it to flourish. The timing of the school’s formation was also an important precursor. The end of the First World War convinced Gropius that a new era was being ushered in. He felt that it was necessary for there to be a school of art that matched this new age by fitting in with industrialization while still sustaining aesthetic and artistic appeals.[35] Place also had an effect on the development of the school. When the institution was moved to Dessau, Meyer took a new approach to how the school was run. Architecture was introduced as a key discipline and emphasis was placed on practicality as opposed to aesthetics. Additionally, the school’s location in Dessau left it vulnerable to the Nazis, an issue that later led to its closure.[36]

Innovation of Poster Design

Poster art was an important component of the constructivism movement. Artists from different schools engaged in the art. However, the left artists were some of the first to join the Bolsheviks and fully supported the revolution. When the movement had first started, the works were three-dimensional sculptures. After a while, however, the nature of the works diverged and the artists started making two-dimensional art such as posters.[37] The constructivists were celebrated because their work went in line with communist ideals and the poster art exemplified this. Harsh economic circumstances eventually forced many artists to work for the government and this helped the poster art to flourish.[38] Bauhaus posters were different from the constructivist ones in that they did not reflect any political ideals. Their posters were solely a form of art and were not used for any propaganda. The geometric shapes and structures used in the poster designs were similar to those used in the three-dimensional art with the difference being that they could not reflect the practicality that the school advocated.[39]

Impact of Theoretical Tenets

The theoretical tenets of the Bauhaus school and the constructivist movement were similar in some ways. The two philosophies were related in that they both sought the unison of art and life.[40] Proponents of the Bauhaus school felt that art should incorporate other aspects of life such as industry and artisanship. The main idea here would have been to come up with mass-produced and affordable everyday items that still reflected cultural elements and had aesthetic appeal.[41] Alternatively, the constructivists felt that art could be used to form a new society. In some ways, the proponents of this movement wanted to lead a revolution using art.

Time and historical events led to a change in the tenets in both philosophies. The rise of the Nazi government greatly affected the Bauhaus school. Many artists left for countries where their works would be accepted and ended up in America, Britain, France, Russia and later on Israel. The spread of the proponents of the school helped the Bauhaus find its way to different parts of the world. In the West, most of the ideas and works of the Bauhaus school concerned architecture. The white city in Tel Aviv is one of the products of the school’s influence outside Germany. The Bauhaus school played an important role in spreading constructivist ideals in America and Britain. This suggests that after the two philosophies were exported out of Germany and Russia, their ideas changed enough for them to come together, allowing artists from other countries to use this close relationship to gain access to each.

Themes and Context

Communism is an important theme that cut across both schools. The theme was relevant to both Bauhaus and constructivist artists during most eras of the schools.[42] The Bauhaus school could trace its evolution from the ideas of Morris and Ruskin, both of whom subscribed to socialist ideas. Similarly, the constructivists were tied in with communism through their close relationship with the Bolshevik Revolutionaries in Russia.[43] Both schools saw the art as an avenue through which the working class could come together and embolden themselves. The Bauhaus school claimed that the engineer and factory worker were in some ways artists, only that they used different material. Industrialization was also an important theme for the Bauhaus and the constructivist schools. A key ideal within both philosophies was the integration of art and life with a view of revolutionizing the latter. The constructivists were working together with the Bolsheviks towards this end.[44]

Conclusion

            The Bauhaus school and the constructivist movement in Russia had a close relationship that was exemplified by the similarity in ideals, art, theories and even proponents. The two movements contributed to the development of each other as they grew in Europe winning over artists. The close relationship between the two meant that the art produced by the two schools became similar over time. Both created art that was supposed to be functional while still retaining the beauty and style that people traditionally found appealing. Additionally, the school’s were similar in that they tried to use the art for practical purposes. The Bauhaus school tried to solve the German housing crisis under Meyer’s leadership while the constructivist worked with the government in Russia to decorate streets with communist art.  Time had its effects on both schools as the Bauhaus were forced out of Germany and they immigrated to Britain and the United States spreading their ways in the process. The constructivists soon lost favour in Russia and their work died out, with the remnants being engulfed in the post constructivism movement. The fact that the Bauhaus school managed to flourish in the rest of Europe and the US implies that it was the better of the two. Technology also had its impact on the two schools. Industrialization was a key part of the theories and ideas put forward by the two schools. Technology was supposed to go hand in hand with art. The fact that the constructivist movement died out suggests that this union did not happen. However, the Bauhaus school flourished for a while. The one facet of both schools that withstood technological changes was architecture. This is especially true for the Bauhaus movement as the school’s architectural design can still be seen in Tel Aviv, Chicago and Germany.

 

 

 

 

 

Bibliography

 

“Bauhaus.” Saylor.org. Last modified June, 2011. http://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Bauhaus.pdf.

This is an article about the Bauhaus school that looks at the entire movement in general beginning with its genesis, focussing on ideas, proponents and works and also looking at architecture.

“Bauhaus architecture.” Stellenboschheritage.co.za. Last accessed November 04, 2013. http://www.stellenboschheritage.co.za/wp-content/uploads/07-Bauhaus-architecture.pdf

This paper delves into the Bauhaus school but places its emphasis on the architecture that typified the school.

“Bauhaus School Germany: Teachers & Artists 1919-1933.” Cultourinaria.com. Last accessed November 04, 2013. http://www.cultourinaria.com/uploads/Bauhaus_Artists.pdf

This article contains the brief profiles of artists who were involved in the formation of the Bauhaus school and the advancement of its ideals in different parts of the world.

Bergdoll, Barry, and Leah Dickerman. Bauhaus 1919-1933: workshops for modernity. New York: Museum of Modern Art, 2009. <http://books.google.co.ke/books?id=VEmZRkK2aDoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Bergdoll+and+Dickerman&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Zdl3UvD-KYfRsgbOpoHgDg&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Bergdoll%20and%20Dickerman&f=false>

This book by Bergdoll and Dickerman bears an in-depth analysis of the Bauhaus school in the years that it was based in Germany. The analysis looks at the school as a member of the European modernism movement.

Birringer, Johannes. “Bauhaus, Constructivism, Performance.” Brunel.ac.uk. Last accessed November 04, 2013. http://people.brunel.ac.uk/dap/BauhausConstructivism.pdf

Birringer looks at the Bauhaus and constructivism schools of art focusing on their works and the form and structures that the artists used within these schools.

“Constructivist Architecture.” Arch.tttu.edu. Last Modified 2009. http://www.arch.ttu.edu/Architecture/Faculty/buelinckx_h/Fall2009/Theory/Student_pdfs/06.Constructivist_AmyWalker.pdf

This article delves into the constructivist school, focusing on the architecture that was developed by proponents of the school mainly within Soviet Russia. It also outlines the history of constructivist architecture from its beginning until it became part of the post constructivist school.

“Constructivism (art).” Saylor.org. Last modified 2011. http://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Constructivism.pdf

This article outlines the history of the constructivist philosophy, looking at its proponents, works and ideals.

“Constructivism, futurism and Bauhaus.” aaart.lib. Accessed November 04, 2013. http://www.aaart.lib.il.us/course-materials/art/art-305/Futurism.pdf

This work focuses on the ideals put forward in three schools of art and finds comparisons and contrasts within the schools.

Borde, David. “Constructivism Movement in art.” Bigad.tv. Last modified July, 12 2006. http://www.bigad.tv/Constructivism_Movement.pdf

Borde’s article takes a brief look at the constructivist movement as founded by Tatlin and focuses mainly on the works that were created and the style that was used to create them within the philosophy.

Dewyer, Stephen Garrett. “Politics of the Bauhaus and Soviet Constructivism.” Stephengdewyer.info. Last modified February 12, 2013. http://www.stephengdewyer.info/PDF%20files/politics_of_the_Bauhaus_and_Soviet_Constructivism.pdf

Dewyer studies the political issues and events that surrounded the formation of the Bauhaus and Soviet constructivism looking at the close connection that the two shared.

Droste, Magdalena, and Angelika Taschen. Bauhaus 1919 – 1933. Köln: Taschen, 2002. <http://books.google.co.ke/books?id=ZXB8rX5AsgUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+Bauhaus&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2EJ3Uvb_HMnX0QWLhYCAAQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false>

Droste and Taschen analyze the Bauhaus movement as it existed in Germany between 1919 and 1933. Their focus is placed mainly on proponents of the school, ideals and work s produced within the philosophy.

Flanagan, Lisa. “The Bauhaus (per)forms.” Master’s thesis, Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, 2002.

Flanagan’s thesis offers analysis into the Bauhaus movement within the context of a stage performance. The thesis also outlines the history, works and ideals of the school.

Forgács, Éva. The Bauhaus idea and Bauhaus politics. London: Central European University Press, 1995. <http://books.google.co.ke/books?id=HMOdpTeMM1AC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Eva+forgacs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Itl3UoXmB8fStAaH54CIDA&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Eva%20forgacs&f=false>

Forgacs’ book delves deep into the world of the Bauhaus school paying special focus to the politics that surrounded the school’s formation and political ideas contained within the philosophies tenets.

Gropius, Walter. “Bauhaus manifesto 1919.” colexiocalasancias.com. Last accessed November 04, 2013. http://www.colexiocalasancias.com/Componentes/[Architecture%20Ebook]%20Bauhaus%20manifesto.pdf

This document is the manifesto that Gropius released in 1919, following the formation of the school in Weimar. The document outlines the principles that the school held at the time as well as guidelines for students to follow.

Lodder, Christian. “Naum Gabo and the Quandaries of the Replica.” Tate.org. Last modified January, 2012. http://www.tate.org.uk/download/file/fid/7364

Lodder’s article takes a look at Naum Gabo placing emphasis on the works that he created his ideals and principles.

Resnick, Ethan. “The Populist Bauhaus.” ethanresnick.com. Last accessed November 04, 2013. http://www.aaart.lib.il.us/course-materials/art/art-305/Futurism.pdf

This article outlines the Bauhaus school before the Nazi government shut it down looking at what it entailed to be a Bauhaus member in Germany.

Ruder, Adam. “Art and the Shaping of Society: Russian Posters and Constructivism 1917-1924.” Master’s thesis, Haverford University, 2003.

Ruder’s thesis studies Russian posters as an art form that was popularized by the Bolsheviks and the constructivists.

Schuldenfrei, Robin. “The Irreproducibility of the Bauhaus Object.” In Bauhaus Construct: Fashioning Identity, Discourse and Modernism, edited by Jeffrey Saletnik and Robin Schuldenfrei, 37-60. Routledge: London, 2010.

Schuldenfrei’s chapter focuses solely on the art works and creations of the Bauhaus school looking at their form, structure and design.

O’Carroll, Michelle. “The Evolution of the Bauhaus.” michelleocarroll.com. Last modified 2013. http://michelleocarroll.com/academic-essays/the-evolution-of-the-bauhaus

This article traces the evolution and development of the Bauhaus as a school of art in Europe placing focus on the time that the school was in Germany.

“Vladimir Yevgrafovich Tatlin.” Saylor.org. Last modified February, 2012. http://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/ARTH208-4.2.2-Vladimir-Tatlin.pdf

This is a detailed biography of Vladimir Tatlin, the founder of Russian constructivism. The article looks at his growth as an artists, works, ideas and the people who he inspired.

[1] “Constructivism (art),” Saylor.org, last modified 2011, http://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Constructivism.pdf

[2] Magdalena Droste, and Angelika Taschen, Bauhaus 1919 – 1933 (Köln: Taschen, 2002), 10.

[3] “Constructivism, futurism and Bauhaus,” aaart.lib .Accessed November 04, 2013, http://www.aaart.lib.il.us/course-materials/art/art-305/Futurism.pdf

[4] “Constructivism, futurism and Bauhaus,” aaart.lib .Accessed November 04, 2013, http://www.aaart.lib.il.us/course-materials/art/art-305/Futurism.pdf

[5] “Constructivism (art),” Saylor.org, last modified 2011, http://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Constructivism.pdf

[6] Johannes Birringer, “Bauhaus, Constructivism, Performance,” Brunel.ac.uk, last accessed November 04, 2013, http://people.brunel.ac.uk/dap/BauhausConstructivism.pdf

[7] Eva Forgacs, The Bauhaus idea and Bauhaus politics (London: Central European University Press, 1995), 10.

[8] Droste, Magdalena, and Angelika Taschen, Bauhaus 1919 – 1933 (Köln: Taschen, 1995), 10.

[9] Droste, Magdalena, and Angelika Taschen, Bauhaus 1919 – 1933 (Köln: Taschen, 1995), 10.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Droste, Magdalena, and Angelika Taschen, Bauhaus 1919 – 1933 (Köln: Taschen, 1995), 10.

[12] Droste, Magdalena, and Angelika Taschen, Bauhaus 1919 – 1933 (Köln: Taschen, 1995), 14.

[13] Eva Forgacs, The Bauhaus idea and Bauhaus politics (London: Central European University Press, 1995), 24.

[14] Michelle O’Carroll, “The Evolution of the Bauhaus,” michelleocarroll.com, last modified 2013, http://michelleocarroll.com/academic-essays/the-evolution-of-the-bauhaus

[15] Michelle O’Carroll, “The Evolution of the Bauhaus,” michelleocarroll.com, last modified 2013, http://michelleocarroll.com/academic-essays/the-evolution-of-the-bauhaus

[16] Ethan Resnick, “The Populist Bauhaus,” ethanresnick.com, last accessed November 04, 2013, http://www.aaart.lib.il.us/course-materials/art/art-305/Futurism.pdf

[17] Michelle O’Carroll, “The Evolution of the Bauhaus,” michelleocarroll.com, last modified 2013, http://michelleocarroll.com/academic-essays/the-evolution-of-the-bauhaus

[18] Flanagan, Lisa, “The Bauhaus (per)forms,” Master’s thesis, Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, 2002.

[19] Barry Bergdoll and Leah Dickerman, Bauhaus 1919-1933: workshops for modernity, (New York: Museum of Modern Art, 2009), 12

[20] “Constructivism (art),” Saylor.org, last modified 2011, http://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Constructivism.pdf

[21] “Constructivism (art),” Saylor.org, last modified 2011, http://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Constructivism.pdf

[22] “Constructivism (art),” Saylor.org, last modified 2011, http://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Constructivism.pdf

[23] “Constructivism (art),” Saylor.org, last modified 2011, http://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Constructivism.pdf

[24] Magdalena Droste, and Angelika Taschen, Bauhaus 1919 – 1933 (Köln: Taschen, 2002), 12

[25] “Bauhaus School Germany: Teachers & Artists 1919-1933,” Cultourinaria.com, Last accessed November 04, 2013, http://www.cultourinaria.com/uploads/Bauhaus_Artists.pdf

[26] “Bauhaus School Germany: Teachers & Artists 1919-1933,” Cultourinaria.com, Last accessed November 04, 2013, http://www.cultourinaria.com/uploads/Bauhaus_Artists.pdf

[27] “Vladimir Yevgrafovich Tatlin.” Saylor.org, last modified February 2012, http://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/ARTH208-4.2.2-Vladimir-Tatlin.pdf

[28] “Vladimir Yevgrafovich Tatlin.” Saylor.org, last modified February 2012, http://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/ARTH208-4.2.2-Vladimir-Tatlin.pdf

[29] Christian Lodder, “Naum Gabo and the Quandaries of the Replica,” Tate.org, Last modified January, 2012, http://www.tate.org.uk/download/file/fid/7364

[30] Birringer, Johannes. “Bauhaus, Constructivism, Performance.” Brunel.ac.uk. Last accessed November 04, 2013. http://people.brunel.ac.uk/dap/BauhausConstructivism.pdf

[31] “Bauhaus architecture,” Stellenboschheritage.co.za, Last accessed November 04, 2013, http://www.stellenboschheritage.co.za/wp-content/uploads/07-Bauhaus-architecture.pdf

[32] “Constructivist Architecture,” Arch.tttu.edu, Last Modified 2009, http://www.arch.ttu.edu/Architecture/Faculty/buelinckx_h/Fall2009/Theory/Student_pdfs/06.Constructivist_AmyWalker.pdf

[33] Adam Ruder, “Art and the Shaping of Society: Russian Posters and Constructivism 1917-1924,” Master’s thesis, Haverford University, 2003.

[34] Ethan Resnick, “The Populist Bauhaus,” ethanresnick.com, Last accessed November 04, 2013, http://www.aaart.lib.il.us/course-materials/art/art-305/Futurism.pdf

[35] Eva Forgacs, The Bauhaus idea and Bauhaus politics (London: Central European University Press, 1995), 10.

[36] Michelle O’Carroll, “The Evolution of the Bauhaus,” michelleocarroll.com, last modified 2013, http://michelleocarroll.com/academic-essays/the-evolution-of-the-bauhaus

[37] “Constructivism (art),” Saylor.org, last modified 2011, http://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Constructivism.pdf

[38]  Adam Ruder, “Art and the Shaping of Society: Russian Posters and Constructivism 1917-1924,” Master’s thesis, Haverford University, 2003.

[39] “Bauhaus,” Saylor.org, Last modified June, 2011, http://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Bauhaus.pdf.

[40] “Constructivism, futurism and Bauhaus,” aaart.lib .Accessed November 04, 2013, http://www.aaart.lib.il.us/course-materials/art/art-305/Futurism.pdf

[41] Eva Forgacs, The Bauhaus idea and Bauhaus politics (London: Central European University Press, 1995), 10.

[42] Stephen Garrett Dewyer, “Politics of the Bauhaus and Soviet Constructivism,” stephengdewyer.info, last modified February 12, 2013, http://www.stephengdewyer.info/PDF%20files/politics_of_the_Bauhaus_and_Soviet_Constructivism.pdf

[43] Stephen Garrett Dewyer, “Politics of the Bauhaus and Soviet Constructivism,” stephengdewyer.info, last modified February 12, 2013, http://www.stephengdewyer.info/PDF%20files/politics_of_the_Bauhaus_and_Soviet_Constructivism.pdf

[44] David Borde, “Constructivism Movement in art,” Bigad.tv, Last modified July, 12 2006, http://www.bigad.tv/Constructivism_Movement.pdf